Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Reuters has this:


The 15 Security Council members began meeting late on Thursday and remained behind closed doors for two hours until early Friday morning to discuss the three-sentence statement.

But council diplomats said one phrase in it was unacceptable to the Georgians, backed by the United States and Europeans. That wording called on all sides in the conflict "to renounce the use of force," according to a draft of the text.

After failing to agree, the council decided not to take any action on the issue, the diplomats said.

(...)

French, British and other Western envoys also called for all sides to stop fighting and resume negotiations. French Deputy Ambassador Jean-Pierre Lacroix told reporters the council would probably come back to the issue.

AFP has this:


Belgium's UN Ambassador Jan Grauls, who chairs the council this month, said members "expressed serious concern at the escalation of violence and asked for an immediate resumption of dialogue".

But he also acknowledged that, due to the late hour, the 15-member council "was not in a position" to agree on a text.

The key sticking point, according to Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin, was "the reluctance" of some council members to accept a reference to the need for the warring parties "to renounce the use of force."

(...)

The Georgian envoy said several council members backed his call on Russia to end "the transit of military equipment and mercenaries" through its territory in support of the South Ossetia separatists.

Meanwhile France's deputy ambassador Jean-Pierre Lacroix urged "an immediate resumption of dialogue with a view to a ceasefire," warning that the escalating violence was "a clear threat to peace and security in the region."

Xinhua has this:


Diplomats said that during the closed-door consultations, the council failed to reach an agreement on the Russian text because some council members, including the United States, opposed the part calling on the parties to "renounce the use of force."

Kommersant notes this (not about UNSC, but about reactions):


EU Demands an Immediate Stop to the Violence, U.S. Wants Russia to Stop It

The European Union is extremely concerned about the development of events in South Ossetia and is calling on all sides in the conflict to stop the violence in the region immediately, Reuters reports. "We are following this very closely, we are very concerned by how the situation is evolving," an EU official told the information agency, who added that the EU is in contact with all interested international parties, including the United States, Russia and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

An American senator made a similar appeal earlier, although his interpretation of the events had a twist. Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) called on Russian peacekeepers to put an end to the military action. The world is watching Russia's actions, and so Moscow should take immediate action to restore peace in South Ossetia, Biden said.

Biden also praised Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for urging calm and restraint in the region. Clearly Biden, like many other American politicians, prefers to believe the official position of Tbilisi that South Ossetia began the military actions by attacking Georgian villages and Russian peacekeepers are helping the separatists.

CNN also reflects that different take, with this title: Russians accused of 'bombing' Georgia as violence escalates...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 06:30:34 AM EST
Maybe I'm missing something here - but isn't it the Russians who are asking both sides to renounce the use of violence? Then why are only they being asked to stop?

As my boss has done a good amount of work in North Ossetia, which has long & deep ties with the Russians, so I wonder if that is true with South Osetia? I suspect there is a lot of convoluted history involved.

Can anyone say more about what is up with Georgia? Why are their claims to these countries so important that they are willing to risk war?

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 10:30:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why are their claims to these countries so important that they are willing to risk war?

See the first 3 words in the title of this post...

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 11:06:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
isn't it the Russians who are asking both sides to renounce the use of violence? Then why are only they being asked to stop?

Welcome to the wonderfully surreal world of Western (eh, you know what I mean) journalism and politics!

I particularly enjoy the WSJ headline, "Russian Conflict Escalates: Russia and pro-U.S. ally Georgia were on the brink of war, with Russian troops and tanks moving into Georgia's breakaway province of South Ossetia."    

I hope that much spinning makes them sick to their stomachs...

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 11:44:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Quote:
Welcome to the wonderfully surreal world of Western (eh, you know what I mean) journalism and politics!
--------
Yeah!If only you/we can see what was a real situation during wars in ex-YU...

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein
by vbo on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 at 08:09:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Another lesson from Kosovo. This plays into Russia's hands not because Russia has a free reign for a retaliation, but now Russia will more aggressively arm the separatists.

Russia overrunning Georgian positions and seizing land accomplishes nothing for Russia, because unless they occupy, they just have to give it back.

On the other hand, if you arm citizens and trigger a bloody guerrilla war, you can have a nasty ethnic fight and wash your hands of the whole affair at the same time. Once you turn two peoples against one another, you'll have a devil of a time putting the genie back in the bottle. That's what the Russians are counting on. Russian military force cannot achieve separation, in this instance. Only a bloody civil war can do that.

So, Russia renounces force, and the Georgian military does as well, and what's left? Guerrillas.

by Upstate NY on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 03:21:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
99% of South Ossetia voted for independence from Georgia in a recent referendum.  Mostly, they already see themselves as separate.  This is not exactly organized by Russia.  You can make an argument that it was provoked by Russia meddling about.  But you can't simply choose to ignore the fact that Saakashvili is on a very clear mission here.  This has the potential to be good for Russia, but it also has the potential to be bad for it too.  The Russian stock market has already plunged.  A fierce propaganda was has begun.  Which they certainly did not need.  I'm not sure getting themselves bogged down in another ethnic conflict in the Caucasus, esp/ so close to the site of the Sochi Olympics, is beneficial.  ...

Which makes me wonder what those who are now calling for respect for Georgian territorial integrity, despite the desires of the South Ossetians, thought of the war in Chechnia.  Is it a set of values which guides us, or do we simply decide what to condone and condemn based upon which side the Kremlin happens to be on?  

So, Russia renounces force, and the Georgian military does as well, and what's left?

Or Georgia could do what it did today and begin attacks less than 24 hours after agreeing to cease the use of force...

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 03:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm only answering the question posed...

Renouncing violence from both parties does not mean that violence ends or that tensions cease.

As in Kosovo, you always have other actors in the field ready to rile things up.

Russia doesn't gain from a full-fledged war. They gain much more by supporting rebels.

by Upstate NY on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 04:17:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My first impression went back to Reagan's 1983 invasion of Grenada, Urgent Fury as it was called. It was a quick operation that had an enormous psychological impact on public opinion after the Vietnam debacle. Russia needs to show the world, especially the US, NATO and border states that they mean to react- with urgent fury- to safeguard their interests.

Russia will continue to foster rebels throughout the ex-Soviet states but will at times feel it necessary to demonstrate their might. Ukraine has no doubt got the message today.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Fri Aug 8th, 2008 at 05:13:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series